General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWRIT OF MANDAMUS: Saving the ACA
Make Trump execute the ACA.
A (writ of) mandamus is an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering the government official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion. (See, e.g. Cheney v. United States Dist. Court For D.C. (03-475) 542 U.S. 367 (2004) 334 F.3d 1096.)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mandamus
Mandamus ("We command" ) is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a superior court,[1] to any government subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing), and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to reject or authorize applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.
Mandamus may be a command to do an administrative action or not to take a particular action, and it is supplemented by legal rights. In the American legal system it must be a judicially enforceable and legally protected right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when he is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something and abstains from doing it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandamus
FBaggins
(26,737 posts)no_hypocrisy
(46,104 posts)because it's part of executing the ACA.
brooklynite
(94,571 posts)...their claim is that he's changing HSS regulatory rule devised to implement ACA, not the underlying law itself. They also argue that Congress hasn't appropriated the funds so there are no subsidies to allocate.
eShirl
(18,492 posts)spanone
(135,832 posts)watoos
(7,142 posts)NY AG Schneidermann and other AG's are threatening to do if Trump cuts out the subsidies?
Atticus
(15,124 posts)IMPEACHMENT, but the GOP in Congress are testicularly impaired.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,001 posts)I would hope that progressive people would be beyond reference to sexual attributes or queer or asexual attributes as insults.
Rollo
(2,559 posts)"I have never had any contact with any human being who appears to be so self-absorbed and so impressed with himself," Smith said, according to the Easy Reader. "He's kind of like a big bag of wind."
- 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Justice Milan Smith, regarding Trump's "arrogant" and "pompous" approach to buying a California golf course and then proceeding to sue and insult everyone in sight in 2002-2012...
http://www.npr.org/2017/10/12/557171757/insults-lawsuits-and-broken-rules-how-trump-built-a-california-golf-course
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,001 posts)AlleganCarpenter
(25 posts)Spine Impaired?
mopinko
(70,103 posts)Atticus
(15,124 posts)Rollo
(2,559 posts)BigmanPigman
(51,593 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Current ruling is that the subsidies in question are not legal as they were paid.
This doesn't apply to all subsides, tax credit subsidies are safe- but just certain ones, the same ones his recent order covers.
If you pushed this right now based on the current ruling you would lose.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_v._Price
The cost sharing to insurance companies was allowed for under the ACA law, but there was no funding source specifically set up and allocated for it. Since the law failed to fund it that requires congress to allocate the funds every budget cycle. Since the GOP seized the House they have refused to fund it, so the Obama administration found ways to fund it anyway. Congress filed suit claiming that it was Unconstitutional for the President to allocate money from the treasury not allocated by Congress.
The repugs won. The judge allowed payments to continue if the President wanted pending appeals, but just like that initial spending it was all at the discretion of the Executive branch.
With Trump stopping this he has actually just followed what the courts have thus far ruled on this.
Unless you get the law changed the courts are not going to go out way on this. The courts are never going to accept an arguement that the President can override the Congress on allocating funds from the Treasury, because that's a core of the separation of powers.
lark
(23,099 posts)Looks like taking it on the chin is all that can be done in the short term. We were going to enroll my husband in ACA after I retire in 2 weeks and he is no longer covered under my insurance, but now will probably will have to do COBRA until he's had his knee replacement and therapy. That's really expensive and I'm very worried long term about the skyrocketing cost of healthcare. If anything serious happens after the huge expense we're having in the coming months, don't know how we can make it.
My only hope is that enough Drumpf voters are really hurt by this that they turn away from him. Congress isn't going to stop Russia, heck, Ryan & McConnell depended on Russia and they aren't about to cut off that $$ stream. So, we're down to Mueller removing him or the loss of America. Repugs won't do anything to drumpf if Russia steals election for them, they'll keep him there as a useful idiot and Putin fluffer and tool. America as we know it will be gone if that happens.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)The individual subsidies that are done as tax credits are safe.
What this affects are the payments that the government has been making to insurance companies to cover their loss on ACA plans.
The cost sharing subsidies are given to people with very low incomes (think unemployment insurance level). It greatly reduces their co-pays, co-insurance, and deductibles. I personally know because I was unemployed for a year and received this help. It was vital. Without this, no older citizen on unemployment, or with a similar near poverty income level, could afford to get health insurance/care.
There is a separate issue of payments to insurance companies to cover their losses incurred by insuring people with pre-existing conditions in the first 10 or so years of the ACA. Congress has dragged its feet on disbursing those funds, but I thought it had finally decided to let them go thru. The risk pool funding is supposed to taper off as more (younger, healthier) people sign up for the exchange coverage.
The risk pool amelioration issue has been a direct cause of the higher premiums that the GOP and Trump have been bloviating about. They conveniently leave out that it is their failure to honor the original agreement on risk pool coverage, so they are trying to shift the blame onto the ACA when it's really their fault.
The cutting off of low income cost sharing subsidies will further exacerbate the high premium issue. It's a cluster fuck courtesy of Trump, McConnell, Ryan, et. al.
VOTE OUT THE BASTARDS!